Posted on 04/19/2014 2:49:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "No because it's not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it's guarding against it's not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That's why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No, he has not — he puts far, far too much import on the way things have 'always' been done.
As such, he continues to carve out exceptions to what the Constitution plainly says in order to justify things like unwarranted search and seizure.
I like that idea. It might use some tweaking, but it would rejuvenate the court and balance the weight of presidential nominations.
Why. He is telling you the outcome of the case if you bring it right now. So wait. We have to change the composition of the court before such a case should be brought.
I was here and there was a lot of debate about the patriot act.
Bookmarked, very sadly bookmarked - - - - .
“unreasonable” - the often admitted term
and it IS a qualifying term
and all Scalia is saying he is not sure he, or the Court, really know what is “unreasonable” (searches and seizures) in “the NSA stuff”
it is also Scalia’s way of saying that IF it is agreed by enough of us that it is “unreasonable” then would not legislation be the way to say that
it is also Scalia’s way of saying that IF it is agreed by enough of us that it is “unreasonable” then would not legislation be the way to say that
In other words: "I don't now what "unreasonable" means in this context. Please define it for me, legislature."
Scalia is punting, not doing his job as one of the three branches of government.
The Court has not previously hesitated to rule on questions of national security. This is not to advocate an activist Court, just one that does its constitutional job. Its role is to decide what is "reasonable."
Very sad:(
Clearly, you get it.
The author grabbed one small portion of what Scalia said on the subject and used it as chum. Scalia also said:
“The institution that will decide that is the institution least qualified to decide it. We know nothing about the degree of the risk. The executive knows. The Congress knows. We don’t know anything, and we’re going to be the one to decide that question?”
SCOTUS shouldn’t have to balance an unspecified risk against an intrusion upon our 4th Amendment right. Congress should have explicitly narrowed the power it was granting because as we all know, unlimited scope always leads to broad interpretations of permissibility.
I apologize for posting this article and pinging the SCOTUS list. I’d ask to have the article pulled if doing so didn’t remove all of your comments.
The author deliberately took a small portion of what Scalia actually said about NSA wiretapping and used it as chum to attract the sharks. She did not even accurately quote him. I am disgusted that Breitbart allowed it.
I encourage you to listen to all of what Scalia had to say. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4
——Moderator Marvin Kalb-——
More correctly” the partizan leftist Marvin Kalb”
He never moderates
I no longer trust Breitbart. Is Alex Marlow really a conservative? The truth seem to elude him. I have the same issues with Glen Beck.
After (A.Breitbart's death) the editors who took over Breitbart "News" were not the same as Andrew Breitbart, Sadly. Just dont remember what that defining moment was when i realized that.
Correct. Reasonable intrusion seems to be his religion.
Yep, I want a SCOTUS that is a hawk on the Constitution. Take me back to the Lochner Era and fast.
The TSA exists against a completely unspecified and phantom risk. If you fly you cannot be trusted. Drive a car or truck there and you’re OK. Same thing with a train, but something about planes makes us criminals, subject to search and seizure without a warrant. That’s a security state, not a individual liberty state.
The greatest thing that SCOTUS and the Constitutionalists have done is crack open campaign finance. Not enough in my opinion, but plenty more than Democrats or the GOPe wanted. We need to win and put the most conservative Congress in place, then hold their feet to the fire, year after year after year. Just holding the budget flat for a decade would cure the deficit problem.
Good analysis and your thinking, I believe, would shut down major portions of the Patriot Act (misnamed), the NSA domestic spying, and eliminate the TSA.
The information lists him as “journalist/scholar”, but for virtues’ sake should read “made member of the Democratic Party”.
There is more brainpower in his comment than there is in all the FReepers who express disappointment in him. Would you have this great man relegated as your own personal "Yes" man?
I went to the link......Really hard to pull myself away from the conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.